Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Official Report 513KB pdf

---

Major Transport Infrastructure Projects

Item 3 is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work on projects, initiatives and developments in his portfolio that relate to the committee’s remit.

I welcome the cabinet secretary, Keith Brown, who is accompanied by David Climb [Interruption.] I mean David Climie. I apologise. That is the second time I have been corrected this morning. We will try to improve. David is project director in the Forth replacement crossing team at Transport Scotland. The cabinet secretary is also accompanied by Graham Porteous, who is head of special projects at Transport Scotland.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

Thank you, convener. I will not take long. I know that you have already had quite a lot of business to deal with this morning.

First, I congratulate you on your appointment as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, as I do all the other members who have been appointed to it. I wish you well in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s programme and policies on the rural economy and connectivity, and I hope that today’s session will help to clarify further the split of portfolio responsibilities between me, Fergus Ewing, whom you spoke to earlier, and Humza Yousaf.

My appointment as a dedicated cabinet secretary for the economy is intended, as much as anything else, to clearly signal the Government’s focus on stimulating growth, protecting and creating jobs and promoting Scotland as a great place to do business, and none of that will be deviated from as a result of recent events. We will listen carefully to businesses and search for constructive ideas about how they can support economic growth.

However, the Scottish Government believes that we have to recognise the essential role that transport in particular has to play in supporting our economy. Despite what have been pretty relentless budget cuts over recent years in terms of both capital and revenue, the Scottish Government is committed to the largest transport investment programme that Scotland has ever seen, which has been worth more than £16 billion since 2007. To tie that in and explain how it relates to the economy, I note that, if we improve our transport links, we can improve the productive potential of the economy. It is that part of the four I’s—the infrastructure side—that we are focusing on in relation to transport.

I think that Fergus Ewing will have said to you this morning that our view on last week’s vote is that the Scottish Government must be fully and directly involved in any and all decisions about the next step that the UK Government intends to take following the EU referendum result. It is important to ensure that any exit that may happen will not have an impact on existing or planned major projects. It is worth mentioning in passing that most of the major projects that we are involved in employ a substantial number of EU nationals from outwith the UK.

I will give a quick update on the major transport projects. In March, I made a joint announcement with the UK Minister of State at the Department for Transport welcoming the publication of High Speed Two’s report “Broad options for upgraded and high speed railways to the North of England and Scotland”. A steering group is being created to make progress with the ultimate aim of delivering a three-hour rail journey time between Scotland and London and easing the severe congestion on cross-border routes.

As I announced to the Parliament on 8 June, the Queensferry crossing is now expected to be fully open to traffic by mid-May 2017. We are not going to be able to meet a target date of the end of this year, but the project is not late and the revised completion date will have no impact on the budget. The FRC project team held a technical briefing for MSPs on 10 June, and that has now been shared with your clerking team. The Queensferry crossing is one of the most technically challenging building projects ever undertaken in the world, and its location means that it is very weather susceptible. Credit has to be given to the more than 1,200 people employed on the project for the work that they have done so far.

Construction on the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the Balmedie to Tipperty project is well under way and the new roads are on programme to be open to traffic in winter 2017, with the Craibstone and Dyce junctions scheduled to be open by autumn 2016. That project will provide substantial benefits across the whole of the north-east and provide a boost to the economy. It will increase business and tourism opportunities, improve safety and cut congestion as well as increasing opportunities for improvements in public transport facilities.

We must remain steadfast in our commitment to upgrade Scotland’s trunk road network, which includes dualling the entire length of the A96 by 2030, with some 86 miles of upgraded road between Inverness and Aberdeen. Transport Scotland has just awarded a design contract worth up to £50 million to the Mott MacDonald Sweco joint venture to take forward the route option assessment of the western section—that is, between Auldearn and Fochabers. The route option assessment for the eastern section—that is, Huntly to Aberdeen—is expected to commence later this year, with the central section to follow in 2019.

As a result of that project, not only will road users enjoy the benefits of improved journey times and reliability and better connectivity between destinations but, crucially, there will be improved road safety for all those who use this key artery that connects two of Scotland’s economic hubs. Members will know that one of the features of that road is the extent to which very different types of traffic use it, including agricultural traffic, and the conflicts that can arise.

The dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness, the cost of which is estimated at £3 billion, represents the biggest transport investment in Scotland’s history. As well as the on-going construction of the 7.5km Kincraig to Dalraddy scheme, we are working hard to identify preferred routes for the dualling schemes, having already let the public see the proposed designs for three sections earlier this year. As we continue to progress design work, we will carry out ground investigations across the programme over the next few months.

11:45  

The M8-M73-M74 motorway improvements project has already generated £226 million-worth of investment in the economy through subcontracts and is providing employment to more than 1,000 people. Significant progress has been made on the construction of the new M8, with major structures such as the North Calder Water bridge and the Braehead rail bridge at Bargeddie now in place. Those who have passed the new route recently will have seen that it is clearly visible to regular commuters. Tomorrow will see the closure of the B756 from Bellshill to Uddingston for approximately 11 days to carry out the widening of the M74 motorway bridge over the road.

After those initial remarks, I am happy to try to answer the committee’s questions.

Thank you. John Finnie is going to start.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a less technical question about the Forth replacement crossing. I had hoped to ask it at the time of the ministerial statement, but I was not called. Will the public transport commitments regarding the existing facilities be honoured despite the delay?

Do you mean, will the existing Forth road bridge be used as a public transport corridor?

Yes.

That is still our intention. We have to keep an open mind about these things, but nothing has changed from our original statement that the bridge will be used as a public transport corridor.

Since we made that statement, we have had problems with the bridge. However, as well as repairing the fault and other parts that might have had the same vulnerability, we have done what is called a full health check, and it is the first time in many years that the bridge has been checked in that depth. The bridge is in good condition. The biggest issue was the deterioration of the cables. Back in 2005, we said that the new bridge should be open by 2017, because the experts said that the deterioration of the cables on the existing bridge could have become crucial by then, such that heavy goods vehicles would have to come off it. The dehumidification work on the cables has been very successful, so that is no longer the issue that it was, although we still keep an eye on it.

Notwithstanding the fact that we had that incident with the bridge, the work that we have taken subsequently should secure its future and it is our intention, as stated previously, to use it as a public transport corridor on the completion of the new bridge.

I am please to see you here, cabinet secretary. I want to explore a bit of detail about the timescale and what has caused the change. I suspect that the project director might want to answer, because it is important to allow the committee and laypeople—which we, of necessity, are—an understanding of why a few days out of the schedule at one point leads to many months of delay. As someone who ran major projects, albeit in software, I think that I know. Presumably, there will be periods in which activities cannot be undertaken if we slip into them. I had hypothesised, for example, that you might not be able to lay asphalt in winter effectively. It would be helpful for people to be able to understand why the loss of a few days leads to the end date moving back months.

David Climie can comment about asphalt. It is the case that, sometimes, when you lose time such that you cannot do the thing that you intended to do on a given day, as we did in April and May, you cannot do the things that you want to do the next day. That is why we see the effect running through the programme. I am sure that David will be able to explain it much more carefully. Given that he has been up and down the towers many times, I can understand why the convener called him David Climb rather than David Climie.

I should clarify that I was not identifying asphalt except as part of a hypothesis on my part.

You have outlined the principle extremely well. From September last year, I reported regularly to your predecessor committee, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. When I came to see it in September, we were saying—as we had said consistently since the start of the project—that weather was always the biggest challenge. It is an exposed location and there are some technically complex operations to do out there.

In September, we were at the point of saying that the contractor was telling us that it needed an average winter. When I reported to the ICI Committee at the beginning of March, I characterised the situation by saying that things had not gone as well as we had hoped but that the contractor was still telling us that it was doable. That was fair at that time. That view was encouraged during March, when we had a spell of particularly settled weather in which we put up 12 deck units. That suggested that we had turned a corner. Being optimistic—that was the right thing to do—and keeping the target very much in mind, the contractor said that we could still get there for the end of the year.

However, we had a significant setback in April and May, when we lost 25 days to the weather, which was significantly more than we had expected to lose. The weather means not only that people stop working but that momentum is lost in the regular operations. People go out there and expect to do something; if they do not get it done, that has a knock-on effect.

Days that were lost in April and May have affected activities such as deck lifting, which we had expected to complete by about September; the end of that has been pushed back to about November. November is a much worse time out on the Forth than September; we can have deck units out there, but we might not be able to lift them—for example, on one day in May, we sent out a deck unit then had to bring it back in because the wind would not allow us to lift, and we did that for three days in a row before we could finally lift the deck.

By November, we will also have the longest cable stays to handle. As they get longer, they get more difficult to handle. As they are longer, we have to use a crane. On either side of the towers, we have men in a man basket, who are instrumental in installing the cables. The baskets are particularly wind sensitive and the wind has acceleration effects around the towers.

The contractor has gained knowledge and experience in these areas since it started lifting the decks back in September. In May, it told us that it did not think that it could get there in December. We challenged that strongly, as members would expect us to, because hitting the target was important.

We have looked at the issue in great detail in revising the programme. Stewart Stevenson referred to another effect, which relates to having a sequential series of operations. We must finish erecting all the deck units because we cannot put waterproofing and asphalt on the bridge until all the deck units have been lifted and the bridge is fully connected together. If we cannot erect all the deck units until November or December, waterproofing and asphalting must happen in January and February, which are not traditionally the time of year when we want to do such work in Scotland. That means that we must build additional time into the programme.

That is the short version of how we have gone from what appeared to be a 25-day delay to what the contractor says—a delay until mid-May. I emphasise that we are pressing the contractor strongly to better that date if that is possible.

I call Peter Chapman.

I want to ask about the pollution incident that happened on the Aberdeen western peripheral route.

Can we stay on the Forth replacement crossing for the moment? The AWPR is another subject. Do you have a question on the crossing?

No.

That is my mistake. I ask you to hold your question on the AWPR.

The cabinet secretary said that the five-month delay in the completion date will have no impact on the budget. To me as a layman, that begs a question about the original contract. A five-month delay will involve huge costs in relation to employment, for example. I do not understand—because no explanation has yet been given—why that will have no impact on the Scottish budget. That begs the question whether the contract makes good use of public money. There must be an awful lot of leeway in the contractor’s profits.

I am struggling to detect a hint that you are happy that we are reducing the price by in excess of a quarter of a billion pounds. We will go through the technical reasons for the position.

If we go back to the late 2000s and to the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration before 2007, the estimated cost was about £5 billion. There was an urgent need to crack on, and various options were looked at, including the design that we eventually came to, which got the cost down to something that we could afford. I remind members that the Scottish Government is paying for the project from current budgets—Westminster gave no assistance in relation to borrowing. That is not the ideal way to have gone about the project, but such was the urgency that we proceeded in that way.

I think that I am right in saying that, when we went out to tender, the range was £1.75 billion to £2.25 billion. The bid came in below that. Progress that we have made since then has worked the figure down, so savings of £245 million have been made from the original budget. That is a good thing that points to effective project control; I also admit that a good bid was made in a time that was difficult for the construction industry.

It is a good thing that we have the saving. David Climie will give the technical answer to Mike Rumbles’s question.

Certainly. I will give a little detail.

The contract that was awarded to the Forth crossing bridge constructors consortium was a lump-sum, fixed-price contract in which the only allowance for extras was inflation, for which the Scottish ministers took the risk. That means that the contractor takes the time risk, in effect. There was a set date in the contract for the completion of the work, which is June 2017, but there was always the ambitious target, which the contractor felt that it could meet, of having traffic on the bridge in December 2016. Therefore, in its budgets, the contractor has already allowed for the fact that the contract runs to June 2017.

The contract period is not changing; it remains exactly as it was. How the contractor administers its finances within that contract period is entirely for it to determine. There is no option for it to come back to us as a client to seek more money.

I was not making a political point at all. I was trying to find out from a layman’s perspective why that was the case. Your explanation is a good one to me. As a layman, I did not quite understand how, if there was a five-month delay, it was not costing any more money and affecting the original company’s profit. I imagine that it must still be making a substantial profit.

That is for the company. The key point to which David Climie responded was on inflation. Because of the way we went about this project—it is not so true of other projects—the Government took the inflation risk and, of course, you have seen what has happened with inflation. That is part of the picture. It is locked in now, so that saving will not be changed and any additional costs that accrue will fall to the contractor.

We are now going into another winter working scenario and there are added risks and problems to working in the winter. We have had two fairly benign winters without anything more than strong winds. Are you absolutely convinced that no pressure will be put on the safety of the workers by working during the winter and that, having borne that in mind, you will be able to complete the bridge in the timescale that you have given?

Yes. The point about safety is critical. Apart from the tragic death that we had recently, there has been an excellent safety record. There is an absolute commitment to safety from Transport Scotland and the contractor—in particular, Michael Martin, who heads up the project. I have seen it every time I have gone to the bridge. Whether I go by dinghy to get to the towers or however I access the site, people are very strong on safety. We have made it clear to Transport Scotland that it should make it clear to the contractor—as we have done—that safety must be the first consideration.

Interestingly, Michael Martin, who is a very experienced individual, meets every new start who comes to the project. In those discussions, he is often asked whether the big target is to get the project done by a certain date and price but he says, “No, the big target is to get it done safely.” There is an institutional and cultural commitment to safety, and we will not apply any pressure to jeopardise that.

However, having explained that to the contractor—not that we had to, but it understands the point—it has said that the mid-May date that it has given us for next year is achievable. I have to take what the contractor tells me. I will not make a commitment to the public or the committee that is not based on what the contractor tells me. It has the benefit of experience. This may surprise members, but I am told that there has been a learning curve for the contractor because there are not many comparable projects. FCBC has learned a great deal about the weather, deck lifting and cables, which gives it more confidence in its ability to project forward.

We will, of course, apply pressure to ensure that the mid-May date is achieved, because it is our job to challenge, but it will specifically be on the basis that there is no question of jeopardising the safety of anybody on the site.

Thank you for that. We will move on to the Aberdeen western peripheral route.

I will go back to where we were. I began to ask about the heavy rain that we had at the AWPR, which resulted in pollution coming off the site and the suspension of work for seven days. Can you provide an update on that incident? What action is being taken so that such an incident does not happen again? Are we facing an overrun similar to what happened with the bridge, where we lose a week but the work may overrun considerably at the end of the project? I would just like an update on where we are, whether the same thing is likely to happen again and what effect the incident will have on the end date for the project.

12:00  

Although the Scottish Environment Protection Agency was involved in the incident because of the effects of the very heavy rainfall that occurred, the decision to suspend work was taken by the contractor, working closely with us and SEPA. As I am sure that you will know, the issue is not simply the recent period of heavy rain that we experienced in the north-east. Heavy rain in that area has been a factor now for a number of months, going back to last year.

Some of the concerns in relation to the Queensferry crossing do not apply to the AWPR project. The bridge is a very complex project, given all the different road sections. The route that is being proposed in the case of the AWPR is very trying, but the incident will not have a sequential effect in the way that that happened with the Queensferry crossing.

For example, at the sharp end of the Queensferry crossing there are often two people working in a very confined space. There is not much that can be done to influence and speed up the process because of such constraints. That is not the case with the AWPR. When delays such as the one that you mentioned are experienced, there is the opportunity to apply additional resources—as has been done—to make up the time.

Perhaps it would be useful to hear from Graham Porteous, who will be more familiar with the detail of what is happening than I am.

The contractor volunteered to stop work in order to ensure an increase in the mitigation that was in place. Working hand in hand with SEPA, the contractor has reviewed the whole site and is now starting an incremental process of working in various places, provided that SEPA is happy that the mitigation is secure and safe.

The cabinet secretary is correct that the contractor can introduce more staff. It is not a sequential operation, therefore at this point in time—as far as we are aware—there has been no impact on the contractor’s programme.

Has there been an impact on any of the schedule 1 species in the river?

We will have to check and write back to you about that, if that is okay.

As there are no other questions in that round, I will let Richard Lyle have the floor for a wee bit, because he has been sitting patiently. He has a series of questions on the M74.

As the constituency member for Uddingston and Bellshill, I am aware that the M8, M73 and M74 run either through my area or along the border.

First, I welcome the money that has been spent and the jobs that are being created. I also welcome what has been done by the Scottish Roads Partnership. However, there has been a problem with the SRP, as I am aware from communications with my constituents who live along the M74—in particular, those who live by the section just after the Hamilton services, where the road backs on to houses.

The work now involves extending and widening the road, which means taking away a lot of trees and foliage. The work is taking place near the houses, which is causing complaints about noise and cracking in the buildings. Several people have been in contact with me. Before the election I, along with constituents, met with the SRP, and it was agreed that the SRP would continue to update us. However, I am not getting the updates that I want and need.

We also have a particular problem with the St John the Baptist primary school in Uddingston, which is the only primary school—or the only one that I know of; you may correct me—that stands immediately next to the M74. The road will now be nearer the school, and teachers are highlighting concerns.

I went to visit the school, and I have asked Humza Yousaf to visit it with me. He has agreed to do so, and I am sure that you will check whether that is done. The school, which is at the bottom, with the road slightly higher, has indicated that there may be a danger: if a car came off the road, it could, unfortunately, fly into the playground. The school has removed the children from that part of the playground, but it is still asking for some form of fencing, or for higher fencing.

Residents are also asking for sound barrier mitigation—fencing and so on—on the route from Hamilton services and the Raith interchange, because the noise level is going beyond what they were told it would be, as all the vegetation and trees have been removed.

I apologise for the long question, but can you give an update and an assurance on what is happening with regard to the M74?

Yes. You and other members have raised those issues previously, and they have been investigated. I have certainly asked Transport Scotland about them and, in turn, it has spoken to the contractor and received assurances. From the questions that you are now asking, I get the sense that those assurances have not reassured your constituents.

If the updates have fallen off, we will ensure that that is rectified. I have been in post for only a month, but we will ensure that the regular updates that you got before continue.

Humza Yousaf or I will ensure that the meeting that you mentioned goes ahead. It is very important to keep that dialogue and communication open.

The estimates that have been done on sound barriers, or physical barriers for other reasons, are pretty technical and stringent, and they have been re-examined. However, given what you have said about continuing concerns, it is only right that we continue to have that dialogue. Therefore, the meeting will go ahead, the updates will continue and we will keep the dialogue going as we go forward with the project.

I welcome that assurance and am satisfied with it.

I am all for road building and improving roads, but a proposal to build a connecting trunk road from Holytown Road in my constituency through to Eurocentral has come out of the blue. My view, and that of my constituents, is that the M8, the M74 and the Holytown bypass are sufficient for traffic, including lorries, to get into Eurocentral. However, there has been a completely left-field proposal to build a new trunk road from Holytown Road into Eurocentral. I can have a discussion with your officials later to go over the proposal if you do not know exactly where that is, but it is causing quite a lot of concern in the Holytown area, especially among residents. We all know what happens with sat navs: big lorries take the shortest routes.

I will keep it brief. Can that problem be looked at, too, please?

In the interests of brevity, I will ensure that you get a response from officials. However, new roads do not just happen; road proposals go through all the statutory processes. I can give the assurance that if a proposed new road affects your constituency, there is no question but that people will have the chance to have their say. As I said, I will ensure that officials write to you with the up-to-date position on the issue.

I am satisfied with that. Thanks.

When I said that Richard Lyle could have the floor, I did not realise that he would have it for such a long time. I have learned something at this meeting.

I welcome to the committee meeting the MPs from Sri Lanka in the gallery. You are very welcome.

We have dealt quite exhaustively with the M74 and will move on to a question about Prestwick airport.

Before we do so, I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify a matter for me. Do you have any idea when the work on the M8 will be finished? Anyone who commutes from the west coast to Edinburgh knows how horrendous that journey has become. It would be really great to have that information.

First, it might be helpful for me to point out that a bundle of different works affects the Raith interchange, the M8, the M74 and the M73. The scheduled completion date is 2017, although the works may well finish at different points before then.

Thank you.

Will you clarify the Scottish Government’s view on Glasgow Prestwick airport’s current and predicted performance? Do you still intend to return the airport to private sector ownership? Do you have any general comments to make about the airport?

You asked whether it is our intention to return the airport to private ownership. We acquired the airport on that basis. We repeatedly made very clear in public statements that that would be a long-term aspiration, given where the airport was when it was acquired. There had been a lack of investment for many years and a tailing off in passenger numbers, so we understood that it was a long-term project. We are now putting in place the necessary arrangements to allow the airport to go forward and to try to recover passenger numbers. As I am sure that you are aware, it is an atypical airport, given the different activities that go on around the airport, such as aircraft maintenance and repair.

There is also interest in Prestwick as a potential spaceport, although that has perhaps changed a bit given the UK Government’s announcement about how it would go about licensing spaceports.

It is a very challenging situation. To repeat what we said at the time, it was absolutely crucial that we acquired the airport, given the impact on the Ayrshire and west of Scotland economy had we not done so.

Do you a timeline for that?

I am also mindful of the time—

The phrase “long term” is very open-ended.

I am sorry, but I cannot be more specific.

I call Emma Harper—I am afraid that hers will be the last question.

I will be really quick.

I am aware that there is an opportunity to look at the feasibility of extending the Borders railway and at developments in Stranraer harbour. Do you have any updates on Mr Swinney’s promise, when he was the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, to hold a transport summit in Dumfries and Galloway?

From memory, I think that John Swinney has stated that he will continue with that commitment. I could be wrong, but I think that he personally wants to remain involved. Whether it is progressed by John Swinney or somebody else, the summit will go ahead.

In the election, the First Minister made a commitment to the Borders railway extension feasibility study. We had said that we would support the council and other interested bodies, should they want to have such a feasibility study, but I think that we have now gone further than that and have said that we will make sure that a feasibility study happens. That commitment remains, and work is on-going in Transport Scotland to see how that would best be done. The Borders railway shows how hugely beneficial investing in such infrastructure can be to local and rural economies.

Mr Brown, is there anything further that you would like to say? I hasten to add that there are a lot of questions that could have been asked but, due to the lack of time, it has not been possible to get them in. We would like to submit those in writing and would ask that you respond to the committee with answers as soon as possible.

Of course we will respond in writing to the questions that members have not had the chance to ask.

David Climie will recoil in horror as I say this but, if the committee, like the predecessor committee, wishes to visit the Queensferry crossing, I am sure that that can be accommodated. I should update the committee that I have yet to receive a response to my offer to Murdo Fraser to take him to the top of the bridge towers. [Laughter.] In all seriousness, if the committee wants to visit the crossing, members would be able to get—as the previous committee members did—a real appreciation of what is happening on-site. Of course, we would hold such a visit in a way that did not impede progress, but I am happy to make that offer to the committee.

I am sure that we will consider the matter. I am also sure that I will refuse to go to the top of any towers—however bad my mispronunciation of David Climie’s name was. Thank you for that offer.

That concludes the public part of the meeting.

12:14 Meeting continued in public until 12:25.